Cash Deposits from Business Sales Cannot Be Taxed as Unexplained: ITAT:

ITAT granted full relief, holding that demonetisation cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income when they are properly recorded in the books and linked to genuine business receipts.
ITAT Deletes Rs 26.96 Lakh Demonetisation Cash Deposit Addition

Cash Deposits from Business Sales Cannot Be Taxed as Unexplained: ITAT
The ITAT Kolkata granted full relief to the taxpayer in the case of demonetisation cash deposits. The key issue raised before the tribunal was whether cash deposits of Rs 26.96 lakh made during the demonetisation period could be treated as unexplained income.
The assessee, Sanhati Infocom Services Private Limited, is involved in the business of providing internet services to commercial as well as residential users besides doing other activities. The assessee had made some cash deposits during the period of demonetisation. When the tax authorities noted repeated non-compliance by the assessee in the cash proceedings, they treated these deposits as undisclosed income under Section 69A of the Act and made the total addition amounting to Rs 21.86 lakh (Rs 10.91 lakh by applying a rate of 8% on the difference between the deposits in the bank and the turnover of the assessee and, second, Rs 10.95 lakh expenditure claimed under the head of repair and maintenance).
The dissatisfied assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority [CIT(A)], which partly upheld this decision, confirming the addition related to cash deposits. Thereafter, the assessee approached the ITAT Kolkata. When the tribunal analysed the assessee's books of accounts and bank statements. It found that the company consistently deposited cash throughout the year, and these deposits were connected to its business receipts from customers. The Tribunal observed that sales and purchases were properly recorded, and the cash deposits were consistently made with normal business activity.
Consequently, the tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits as coming from its sales. It cited an earlier judgement in the case titled Jayanta Fanzen Lighting Industries (P.) Ltd vs ACIT, where similar additions were deleted when proper explanations and records were provided. Another ruling in the case titled 'ITO Vs Senco Alankar' was also cited by the tribunal, which held that "where the purchases were accepted and no specific defect has been pointed out in the books of account, no addition u/s 69A can be made in respect of cash deposited during the demonetisation period."
The Tribunal held that if cash deposits are supported by books of accounts and no defects are found, they cannot be treated as unexplained. Accordingly, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was fully allowed.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2459My Recent Articles
- ITAT Deletes Section 271B Penalty, Holds Form 3CD Reporting Error Covered Under Reasonable CausePremium
- A Taxpayer Cannot Be Forced to Pay GST Twice Merely Because Tax Paid Under Wrong Head, Rules High CourtPremium
- ITAT Restores Appeal After Condoning 1,929-Day Delay Caused by Director’s Jail Term and IllnessPremium
- Partial Tax Refund Must Be Adjusted Against Interest First, ITAT Upholds Section 244A Refund Interest ComputationPremium
- Farmer Receives Rs 72.76 Lakh GST Recovery Notice for Alleged Shell Company in Tamil Nadu
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








